- 37 -
Normally, with respect to an income tax liability, the right to
sue for a refund requires full payment of the disputed liability.
Under the majority’s reading of section 6330(c)(2)(B), there
would be no such requirement for payment prior to being able to
contest the underlying merits of a self-assessed amount in the
context of a section 6330 hearing before this Court.
The majority’s interpretation results in a dramatic and
improbable change from more than 75 years of established tax
litigation procedure and precedent. If Congress had intended
such a dramatic change, it certainly would have made some
reference or modification to the existing statutory framework for
refund claims and/or suits.
Finally, I find it inconceivable that Congress intended that
taxpayers who filed returns admitting that they owed tax are to
be given the opportunity to contest their own “assessment” of the
tax due, when the respondent seeks to collect it. It is my view
that Congress intended to ensure that taxpayers had certain
rights with respect to the collection process and to permit them
to contest any changes respondent proposed,3 if they had not
already had the opportunity to do so.
CHIECHI, J., agrees with this dissenting opinion.
2(...continued)
is not a deficiency proceeding.
3 Including respondent’s proposed changes from a taxpayer’s
self-assessed tax liability.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011